IS EVERYBODY 100% POSITIVE THERE IS NO GOD?

I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist. I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.

Replies to This Discussion

Nope, not 100% sure either. I'd say I'm at about 98% certainty that there is no god, with a generous 2% of reasonable doubt applied just because we can't know what we can't know. I was raised fundamentalist Christian, and the amount of mental gymnastics that you have to do on a daily basis in order to make god work in light of all the glaring errors and question-begging is unbelievable and exhausting. However, the fact that we've made huge strides in the past century that have explained what was previous attributed to the divine doesn't bode well in the case for god. The more we learn, the more we find that we really don't need a deity to take care of things because things seem to take care of themselves well enough on their own. To quote Fiona Apple:

There's solace a bit for submittingTo the fitfully cryptically trueWhat's happened has happenedWhat's coming is already on its wayWith a role for me to play

I don't understandI'll never understandBut I'm trying to understandThere's nothing else I can do

That about sums it up for me. It's much more likely that we created god, rather than god creating us. It's awfully convenient that whenever someone needs support for ___ cause (i.e., gay rights), god is right there on their side, until someone else claims that god is on their side. Of course, there could always be a god. But why then would a being with all the powers of creation at its disposal do everything in its power to conceal its very existence from the beings it supposedly wants a relationship with? Is this an example of Psyche and Cupid? If there is a god, it's more likely the god of Spinoza, a being utterly removed from its creation, and there is no sense in debating or arguing about something that can't be proven. We have much bigger issues to deal with as a species.

My point was that we know definitively. As Bertrand Russell asked, "Where did God come from?" Any answer creates the question of where the subject of that answer came from and so on resulting in an infinite regress. Then put the lie to semantic objections such as "... can't know the unknowable". Then we'll know. You know?

Gnostic atheists have formed their own religion with as little credibility as any other religion.

As atheists we're supposed to champion reason and we acknowledge that we can't be sure and we can't disprove God. All atheists do not believe in religion or a god but gnostic atheists are as bad as the religious.

Agnostic atheists have formed their own religion with as little credibility as any other religion.

As atheists we're supposed to champion reason and we acknowledge that we can be sure and do not need to disprove God. All atheists do not believe in religion or a god but agnostic atheists are as bad as the religious.

You would make a great theist. You believe in a bunch of imaginative bullshit anyway.

Only in your imagination can you know 100% there is no God. You hold an illogical position that you were indoctrinated into by your surroundings. But I guess I can't logic you out of a hole you didn't logic yourself into.

We atheists had a mighty fine description built up for us as reasonable. In the end, people like you who can't live without religion in their life so they make atheism into one might mess this up for us.

If adherence to objective knowledge formation, noncontradiction and causal choice make me a religious person who does not pray, consider any book or person or group of persons an ultimate authority, congregate with others about these ideas and chant, or hold or celebrate any mystical ideas, then OK. I'm fine with being what you cal religious. I don't know how you define religious, but then it doesn't matter how you define anything because anything can mean anything to a skeptic who is skeptical when they should be certain.

There is no absolute certainty. There are only probabilities. If you have dabbled even the slightest in quantum physics you'll agree that it's quite natural, since with the multiverse theory things that are extremely improbable not only become probable, they become inevitable. That said, in our universe, here, now, there has been no evidence what so ever brought forth that would prove the existence of a god or gods, and thus that existence is extremely unlikely - but you cannot at all be absolutely certain. "Only a sith deal in absolutes."

Are you sure? Not at all? Doesn't that make you Sith-like, then? Being sure that one cannot be sure is an absolute statement and is therefore a blatant contradiction, since its claim is that it(self) is not possibly valid. Skepticism, as a fundamental principle, fails at the outset. It is appropriate when faced with an unsupported claim or in the presence of contradictory evidence, but not appropriately applied to well integrated noncontradictory contextual valid knowledge.

I am no physicist, but I am fairly well acquainted with modern particle physics. And as I have explained already many times on this thread, we do not need, nor can we use physics, to establish a proper opinion on god. So many physicists and physics enthusiasts know not when they leave what can be possibly known and begin to violate more basic epistemological laws that their science and process of verification rely upon. No doubt, current quantum theory is very good at predicting certain things probabilistically. But so was Ptolemy's model of the cosmos more predictive relative to the clearly more correct model put forth by Copernicus. Appearing, as random, or able to act at a distance, is very different than actually doing so or being able to explain it. Quantum uncertainty is a demonstration of the current limit of our ability to perceive. Be patient. We'll fully integrate the quantum level logically, both hierarchically, by describing it as a group of smaller things or currently hidden variables and as a part of what we know to be larger things, as well as contextually without logical contradiction into an objective knowledge base. Or we will not breach this current limit. But we will never prove true randomness or god. We, popular academic theoretical physicists and the media, should be more careful about calling what is at the very limits of our ability to perceive it knowledge, especially when it contradicts, not just other related knowledge, but what makes knowledge possible. There is one reality. Granted, it looks like this is just one local expansion, of many, with these particular physical constants, but no where in existence does anything deserving of the name god exist.

Nice cartoon. You are silly. I am a gnostic atheist. I have zero faith. And zero religion. For beliefs, convictions and knowledge, I use only reason, the art of noncontradictory integration of objective concepts formed from sense perception and the realization that reality exists and things within it do only what is in their nature to do based on their structure and momentum. This is the only sufficient path to knowledge. That's not religious, faithful or mystical. God can be known to not exist, not because it is untestable, but because contradictions and metaphors and things that lack identity cannot manifest. That it is untestable is simply why the absence of direct physical proof of its non-existence is no reason to think it possible. As if knowing about reason and epistemology wasn't proof enough. Faith is the absence of reason as god is the absence of noncontradictory concrete identity (which a thing needs to exist).